Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last evening in this House at the conclusion of the party vote on the third reading of the mixed-ownership model legislation I raised a point of order under Standing Order 141 seeking a personal vote on the legislation. This was ruled out by Deputy Speaker Eric Roy. Standing Order 141 states that a member can ask for a personal vote if the party vote is very close and it could make a material difference. The 61 to 60 party vote could not have been any closer. A personal vote may well have made a material difference to the result in this House, as this House had not heard from some members and it had also not heard from some parties. I would seek guidance from you as to what can trigger Standing Order 141, and I ask what written advice you have as to when this Standing Order may be applied.

The member refers directly to the written content of the Standing Orders, but would need also to read into, alongside that, the Standing Orders that relate to party votes and the position that whips are in—some position of privilege, I might add—to be able to cast party votes appropriately at the time. In order for there to be a personal vote called on a vote that was otherwise a party vote, regardless of the close nature of that vote, there would also need to be some evidence that the whip did not hold the proxies and did not have the full authority to cast all of the votes that were cast by the whip. In the 16 years that we have had MMP that has been a well-understood convention that has developed over that period of time. So although it is true to say that 60 to 61 is very close—in fact, it could not be closer, as the member put it—the reality is that unless there was some evidence presented to the Speaker indicating that there was reason to believe that the whip was inappropriately casting a vote one way or the other, then the convention would be that the party vote stands.

Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the senior Opposition whip briefly.

I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee’s comments are quite correct in that for a whip to cast a full complement of party votes on behalf of their party they must have 75 percent of their members present within the parliamentary complex, and the only way that that can be tested is by way of a personal vote. There are very few instances where that has been tried, and the most recent time—and the only time in the duration of this Parliament—was an unexpected conscience vote on a gambling bill that was held recently. In that case, of the National Party members, 20 of them were absent and did not come to the Chamber to vote, so that more than 25 percent of their members were not present for that vote. So I do not think it is unreasonable, where there is a case where it is a one-vote majority, for that to be able to be tested.

I thank the honourable members for their contributions. Andrew Williams, in raising his point of order, referred to Standing Order 141, which is the relevant Standing Order. But I would also draw his attention to Speaker’s ruling 69/6, where Speaker Kidd has previously ruled that “Closeness on a party vote is not enough, of itself, for a personal vote unless there is something that might make a material difference. This might arise, for example, out of some elements of confusion.” I think that where we see a pattern that is not unexpected in a vote like that, closeness of itself is not sufficient for the Speaker to allow a personal vote. Obviously, the Speaker in the Chair at the time had the absolute right, and ruled in accordance with both the Standing Order and the previous Speaker’s ruling on the matter. There would need to be some evidence of something unusual for a personal vote to be called.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not asking you to rule on it now, but I think a related point, and something that could cause confusion, was raised by my colleague the senior Opposition whip—that is, doubt has now been cast as to the presence of members in the precincts. We have now had some evidence of that. There is a question for the National Party whips: not only do they have the proxies but are they exercising more proxies than they are entitled to?

Order! I do not want this point of order to go down this track, at all. I think the innuendo being cast now is most unfortunate. I think the point of order was raised in good faith. Votes cannot be closer than that, but the matter has arisen before and the Speaker has previously ruled very clearly. As I read just a moment ago to the House, Speaker’s ruling 69/6 states that closeness on a party vote is not enough and there would have to be some unusual circumstances to warrant the Speaker ruling that a personal vote be held on a matter—for example, if there was some confusion about the result. I was not in the Chair. The Speaker in the Chair, though, has certainly ruled in accordance with both the Standing Order and the existing Speaker’s ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First was the party that called for the personal vote last time. There was an outcome that I do not wish to discuss other than to say that if you have—not to specify the exact circumstance—parties A, B, and C in combination, and A turns up, and B and C do not, and A has exhausted its proxies, what is the situation then? I think you can have legitimate concerns correctly raised without doubting anybody else’s integrity when that circumstance happens, as it did the other night because people were not here. One of party A, B, or C was not here, and the question becomes, well, where are they? And is the proxy being correctly exercised, given that the major party may have exhausted all theirs as well? I would like to know whether you could give some consideration to that, not raising it as a contest now.

Order! I appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s point, but I think that the House must accept that there is a fundamental principle in this House that a member’s word is accepted. Where whips cast a certain number of votes, the House must accept that, or the whole basis of the operation of the House starts to fall to bits. The right honourable gentleman has been around this place as long as I have and will remember the way things used to work under previous rules, when members used to have to cast their own votes, and often when the House was sitting in urgency the attendance of members would be tested fairly early in the morning to make sure all members were here. But the rules are different now, and we must accept the word of members and the votes being cast by party whips, or the whole operation of this House is brought into question, and that would be unacceptable. I think the Speaker’s ruling is very clear on the matter, and I do not wish to take the matter any further now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been pointed out to me that in making my point of order I have almost certainly reflected badly on the National Party whips. I did not at all intend to do that. I believe that they have always acted with integrity.

I thank the honourable gentleman.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong the points of order, but I do think that, given the comment you did make about innuendo, and for the future order of the House, it is worth pointing out that the reasons that the National Party did not vote its full complement on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill had nothing to do with the absence of members from the precinct.

And at that point I think we should leave this matter, because it is not helpful to the proceedings of the House today.